Would someone be kind enough to explain the difference between an IMC and IR rating? What are the differences in privlidges and restrictions for a Brit flying a G reg acft in the UK?
Thanks

An Instrument Rating is the full monty - allows you to fly through clouds, file IFR flight plans and make approaches (no sniggering at the back) everywhere in a G-reg aircraft.
An IMC is a half-a***d rating that only applies in G-reg aircraft in the United Kingdom's airspace and will not allow you into Class A airspace - which in this country covers ALL airways and several control zones.

Bluskis

In the USA, you don't need a radio operator's licence at all (or didn't last time I checked) to fly an N-reg aircraft.

If you fly an N-reg outside the USA, then you need a radio operator's licence. The procedure for getting one is on the FCC (not FAA) website.

There used to be a "Restricted Radio Licence for an Alien" or some such, free, valid three years. That's all stopped now, and depending on how you fill in the form, it can cost you from $50 to several hundred $. There is no test, no competence requirement, just money.

I got one, valid for life, for $50. It was quite a palaver since I don't have a US Social Security number. I had to fill in various forms to get past the next stage, but it can be done.

What was the IWR and why did it never appear? Seems like a very sensible idea to me. For that matter, I'm slightly surprised that the IMC has survived in this JAA'd, EASA'd world ... for how long?

Thanks for the detailed reply Keef,

I won't personally be going for it, but the coincidence of reading that communication in the air is is occasionally a problem amongst professional pilots in the States, and the comparisons in workload between FAA and CAA licences discussed here made me wonder if there was a requirement for formal study and testing in the States.

Thats not to say that my calls are always perfect.

Flying Femme.

I think you short changed West Coast in your answer.

Blueski
Not sure what you mean by formal testing. There are three hoops to jump through to attain an instrument rating. Yes there is a written test. It is only as hard as you want it to be. The govt is required to publish all the test questions and many companies will sell you them in book form to study. There is also a practical test in the aircraft to check tolerances. Lastly there is a oral exam in which the examiner peppers you with questions and scenarios for what ever time frame they deem suitable.

Flying femme
What good is the IMC rating? Is it for someone with a limited budget? Almost sounds like the recreational pilot certificate over here, an intro with loads of restrictions.

West Coast

I was referring only to the testing of radio communications procedures and terminology.

A search on prune will give you a considerable collection of views on the IMC rating and its usefulness. Flying femmes answer reflected one end of a spectrum of views.

The actual requirements for IR and IMC ratings are laid out in the following web pages. I am sorry I don't know how to turn it into an actual link, that wasn't in the syllabus.

www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_E.pdf

Be interested in your comments when you have looked at it.

edit: magic, prune turned it into a link automatically

Down&out, englishal, flyingfemme, Julian (and any others I've missed!) - thanks for the support for at least the principle of a more appropriate/accessible rating to enable the non commercial folks to enjoy a little more predictability when heading to Europe - I'll put a note out to AOPA initially and sound out their reaction. No doubt after a few weeks of this debate the full IR will begin to seem quite a pleasant option by comparison! :ok:

Good on yer - If you need support just tell us. I'd like to get something from my AOPA memebership.

flyingfemme

Interestingly, I have an email from the CAA confirming that the IMC Rating is not restricted to a G-reg plane.

There is a proviso: that the country of aircraft registration does not object. The FAA, for example, requires that an N-reg plane is flown with an FAA license/ratings.

I disagree with your apparent view of the IMC Rating; for private flight in the UK, in a non-deiced piston engined plane it comes very close to a full IR in practice. The difference in currency between different pilots, and the sort of plane and kit in it, counts for far more than the difference between the IMC and the IR.

All PPL students who look like they want to get into it properly ought to be encouraged to to the IMC Rating as a necessary step for UK flight. 15hrs min, perhaps 25hrs on average to cover the necessary bits. I suppose the problem is that the school would risk losing business because doing so would inflate the apparent cost of learning to fly.

flyingfemme

Just an observation on your last post.

Not all 'approved organisations' are conveyor belt training outfiits for integrated courses and don't want to do anything else. Some are small operations with a flexible outlook. Most IR instructors in these outfits would love to teach on something different and the 'Head of Training' is still close to the flying frontline.

BTW I forgot, the other thing you would need is to have an operating checklist for the aircraft also approved. This is a formality.

RF

If you want to fly an Outer Mongolian-registered aircraft, in Outer Mongolian airspace, then it is entirely up to the Outer Mongolian authorities to determine what their licensing requirements are. If they choose to accept a Double Dutch Ski-Float Rating, or a Russian Space Craft Rating, or a British IMC Rating, that is entirely their decision.

FFF
-------------

Disclaimer - for those of you with Double Dutch Ski-Float Ratings, I'm not certain that these are actually accepted in Outer Mongolia, and you should check with the Authority before you use it.

2 donkeys,

So if the French take residency into account, that means they do not do it like the USA, which is what I said. Xenophobia? You crack me up!

IO540-C4D5D

Yeh, never thought of that. Hopefully that makes it less likely to happen. I think the CAA could still force its "citizens" to fly on a JAA licence if they decided to, I actually think the CAA is by far the best of a bad European bunch. Still miles behind the Yanks.

Meaning that if you're Resident legally outside the EU, for example a legal Alien in the USA [that cracks me up:D] then you can apply for an endorsement even if you're a brit. Its true I'm afraid, I asked nos frères et soeurs français à DGAC if I could use my IR in a G or F reg plane. To the G reg their response was "whatever the UK say you can do" and to the F reg one, only if I was legally resident outside the EU and could prove it.....

Cyer
EA:D

West Coast,

The IMC is a very strange thing. It's incredibly expensive and complicated to get an ICAO IR in the UK, basically it's a "professional rating" whatever that is. So given the generally cloudy weather in the UK, the CAA have been very pragmatic and come up with an IMC. This is a 15 hour course (yes you read that right, fifteen) which lets you fly in the clouds and even shoot approaches in airspace where you will be unlikely to hit a real IR pilot.

This board is full of the repeating threads. I've seen multiple threads asking what the DH and RVR are when flying a Cat I ILS in Class D and all you have is an IMC. I don't think anybody has come up with an answer they could defend!!!! If you were flying that approach with an IR it would be an easy one. Some people argue that your DH or RVR can be lower flying with an IMC than if you had an IR!!! Confuses the hell out of me. Instead of making IR's accessible like in the US, the CAA makes IRs totally ridiculously hard to get, and fills the gap with this complicated beast called an "IMC"

So that is my understanding, happy to be corrected.

IMC rating MDA's DA's are either 250 or 200 feet above an IR rated pilots.

What I have found most unusual with the JAA system is that there is no formalised examination of morse code knowledge. And the same applies for a CAA IMC.

From a purely practical point of view - surely morse is essential for any IMC flying?

How it got missed out out of the syllabus is totally beyond me...

benhurr

Those are RECOMMENDED MDAs etc. Usually "IR plus 200 feet" with an absolute minimum of 500 feet for a precision aid and 600 feet for non-precision.

But that's not LAW. Or wasn't last time I checked. The IMC-rated pilot can technically use the IR minima. I suspect the CAA would use the "endangering an aircraft" argument if he screwed up and they wanted to prosecute.

Thanks Slim_Slag,
 

That's pretty much how I see it all.

RodgerF
If the IR is not such an inflexible beast why is somebody (from one of these FTO's) not telling pilots. There seems to be a body of PPLs who have a will to learn more and improve their flying but cannot afford the time (and ridiculous fees) to take three months (or whatever) to do it - they have jobs or businesses. Many of them also have aircraft that would be suitable to do the training.

Slim_slag,

From your post, it's clear that you're not in favour of the IMC rating.

I have to agree that a simple IR would be a much better solution. But as a pilot who has to work within the current system, I have an IMC rating, and I use it. I stick to the CAA's recommended minima (200' above the IR minima, including a 50' altimeter error correction for a precision approach, or else 500' for a precision approach or 600' for a non-precision approach, whichever is higher), and I've never heard of any confusion regarding them. Since I don't get the opportunity to fly on instruments very often (my usual aircraft isn't suitably equipped) I use higher minima in real IMC (1000'), but I make a point of flying on instruments, including at least one approach to minima, around once a month, with foggles and a safety pilot if necessary. Does this, in your view, make me unsafe?

You said: "This is a 15 hour course (yes you read that right, fifteen)" Do you know of any accident or incident which has been caused by an IMC-rated pilot having had insufficient training to be safe?

You then said: "which lets you... even shoot approaches" Do you know how many approaches an average IMC student would shoot during training? How does that compare to an FAA IR student? If there is a difference (and I don't know the answer to that), do you feel the higher minima recommended for IMC-rated pilots account for this sufficiently? Do you know of any accidents or incidents which have been caused by an IMC-rated pilot shooting an approach whilst sticking to the recommended minima?

Finally, you said: "in airspace where you will be unlikely to hit a real IR pilot." What is the difference between a "real IR pilot" an any other pilot in terms of the result of hitting them in the air?

Like I said, I don't know the answers to all of these questions, that's why I'm asking them.

Having visited the towers at Heathrow and Gatwick, as well as LATCC and Swanwick, my honest opinion is that it is not safe or practical for GA pilots, however well qualified, to be flying around in the London TMA - there simply isn't the room nor the flexibility to handle IFR aircraft with such different speeds. I know you will cite US equivalents, but I have still not come across an area of the US where there are 5 busy international airports within such a confined space. The IMC rating keeps me out of the way of inbound and outbound traffic at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton and City, and I'm pleased for that. In those areas where proper radar coverage is available, I would rather be flying in Class G airspace than in the London TMA.

If you listen to British IMC-rated pilots and their gripes, it becomes clear that the only real gripe with the IMC rating is that it is not recognised in continental Europe. Which is why a JAR alternative is being asked for.

FFF
--------------

Slimslag summed it up for me, the IR is viewed over here in JAA land as a 'professional' qualification and therefore a pain in the @rse to get!!! It should not be but I think we can learn something from the good 'ole U S of A where and IR is viewed as the natural next rating for a pilot to obtain - the price is within the reaches of your average Joe Bloggs.

I didnt bother with the IMC but went straight for the IR (FAA) but both myself and the other guy who was training with me both came to the same conclusion, that there is no way we would have felt ready to take on IMC 15 hours into our course. I have no idea how many approaches I made but it was LOTS!!! I will have to have a look at my logbook when I get home.

Benhurr
- Nope you dont need to learn morse. It wouldnt hurt if you knew it but to be honest you dont need to. If you fly in the US all morse idents are on the charts anyway. You can always carry a crib sheet with morse alphabet written down if you want. I always work out the morse on any idents as part of my flight planning anyway.